From Aeon Magazine:
Musk did not give me the usual reasons. He did not claim that we need space to inspire people. He did not sell space as an R & D lab, a font for spin-off technologies like astronaut food and wilderness blankets. He did not say that space is the ultimate testing ground for the human intellect. Instead, he said that going to Mars is as urgent and crucial as lifting billions out of poverty, or eradicating deadly disease.
‘I think there is a strong humanitarian argument for making life multi-planetary,’ he told me, ‘in order to safeguard the existence of humanity in the event that something catastrophic were to happen, in which case being poor or having a disease would be irrelevant, because humanity would be extinct. It would be like, “Good news, the problems of poverty and disease have been solved, but the bad news is there aren’t any humans left.”’
(Score: 5, Funny) by dyingtolive on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:03PM
This is pretty good actually. I can probably have a list of a million people that I would prefer to be up on Mars right now too by the end of the week...
Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:10PM
Why do all of the people in your list have dark skin?
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:13PM
No, they are probably phone sanitizers . . .
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:15PM
Phone sanitizers? Huh?
(Score: 1) by khedoros on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:23PM
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:30PM
But, of course! Can't forget to send them.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:12PM
Hitch hiker's guide to the galaxy reference which you missed. Nerd card revoked.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:29PM
Sorry, I never had a "nerd card". I think most sci-fi is total crap.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:34PM
So you only come here to troll? GTFO!
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:16AM
No, I come here to discuss science, technology, computing and stuff like that with intelligent people. But then some dumbasses have apparently brought sci-fi nonsense into the discussion, which ends up with them shitting out total gibberish about phone sanitizers and idiocy like that.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:48PM
If you don't like it, you can always go fuck yourself. Maybe you'll be more entertained that way.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:33PM
Are you lost, little one?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:42PM
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:48PM
I think that most, if not all, have dark souls regardless of their outer coating
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:07AM
You really think they actually have souls?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Thexalon on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:57PM
I can think of 535 people living in and around Washington D.C. Who else did you have in mind?
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:08PM
You and I are thinking alike, but you're forgetting about the Executive, Judicial, Media, and Lobbyist branches.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:09AM
I'd add a bunch in Ottawa and Victoria and I'm sure pretty quick we'll get a list of the worlds capitals, country, state and province.
(Score: 1) by harmless on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:35AM
Hey, there are politicians in other countries, too!
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Wednesday October 01 2014, @04:23PM
I cannot decide if politicians so far removed would be better or worse for their respective countries (assuming they are still doing the politician thing from Mars).
"Hmm, the Martians banned cars. I guess they cannot use them given no atmosphere, so why would they care. At least they made a decision for once."
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @02:20AM
Yes, like Elon Musk I can think of many people I would like to see die on Mars, except, unlike him, *on* impact.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:25AM
Much cheaper and more efficient to just put them in an empty rocket, even the third stage can be empty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @02:51PM
You mean like the Ice Bucket Challenge? I challenge Donald Trump to do the Ice Bucket Challenge on Mars. For the ALS foundation, of course.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:16PM
If you don't understand someone, fly a million miles in their rocket. Then you will be a million miles away from them, and you'll have their rocket too!
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1, Insightful) by dbe on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:05PM
to put either one million layers up-there or none :)
-dbe
(Score: 1) by dbe on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:10PM
hmm, lawyers*... yeah, sorry for the typo, but on the bright side I'm sure they would stack-up pretty well in layers in small cryogenic boxes anyway.
-dbe
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:13PM
Huh?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:25PM
We have fucked, and are still fucking, up this planet; the solution is not to find another planet to fuck up, the solution is to *STOP FUCKING UP PLANETS*.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mhajicek on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:38PM
There are many potential extinction events which are beyond our control. Spreading out would greatly increase humanity's chances of survival.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:55PM
> Spreading out would greatly increase humanity's chances of survival.
I'm not sure that's such a great objective. I've met other people, and I'm pretty sure the universe is better off without even more of them.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:47AM
My response to that is: Ok. You go first! (And saying you want the extinction event to happen after your natural death is a major coup-out.)
Yes, humanity is a work in progress with a lot of flaws. But (noting the Fermi Paradox) I haven't seen a lot of other alternatives if you want the universe to have an element that reasons even just a little.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 01 2014, @11:06AM
My genes end with me. My g/f's genes end with her. It's called being "childfree".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Hartree on Thursday October 02 2014, @02:29AM
"My genes end with me. My g/f's genes end with her. It's called being "childfree"."
Unless you both truly are a lone family tree end point, it's called "ignoring familial descent".
There's nothing wrong with it, either. I also don't have any kids. I certainly could have if I'd wanted to. I just didn't particularly want to. But, I've also got two nephews, a niece, and other extended family, so it's hardly some great statement of finality.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:53PM
> I haven't seen a lot of other alternatives if you want the universe to have an element that reasons even just a little.
Unless you define "reason" strictly as Human-level navel-gazing, you should start by looking at other animals on earth. Modern zoology is full of examples of complex reasoning and even tool-building.
We're better at it (unless you go with the "smartest mathematician on the planet" camel theory), but we're not the only ones.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday October 02 2014, @02:12AM
"but we're not the only ones."
We're in complete agreement on that one. There are some differences in degree, but the more complex animals reason, feel, and have the same roots of behaviors and even morality that we do.
It's just that species Homer Saps has put an unreasonable amount of energy into this big brain strategy and it'd be a setback to have to start it over again. And you might get a planet killer event before it pans out.
And though I'm hardly Professor Pangloss (I see a lot of bad in this world), we do have or moments. And until we see that there's someone else to pick up the torch of being a part of the universe able to figure out pieces of the universe, I'm not ready to give up on it.
(Score: 2) by gman003 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:08AM
Or in computer nerd terms:
Always have a backup.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:25AM
How is a Mars colony going to survive a mass extinction on Earth? Hell, they won't even survive a major market crash or government breakdown. Once Earth's massive industrial complex runs head-first into the limits to growth Mars is going to have a much, much shorter population half-life than Earth.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:50PM
The trip is shorter.
The atmosphere is breathable.
There's water everywhere. (OK, so it is frozen.)
The radiation levels aren't significantly different than what humans are used to.
Antarctica is more hospitable than any place on Mars.
...yet there aren't 10e6 humans there.
Try the "easy" stuff first, Elon.
Once you've got that in hand, then make the quantum leap.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by emg on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:06PM
I'm not sure why this is flagged as insightful. Colonization of Antarctica is prohibited by international law, yet people keep claiming that lack of colonists there proves we'll never go anywhere else.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mcgrew on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:45PM
I think that what he's obliquely attempting to communicate is that Mars ain't easy. We'll get there, we'll colonize it, but it's going to be long after Elon thinks it will be. Things just don't happen that fast. It took almost 70 years to get from Kitty Hawk to the moon, Mars is a LOT harder and space-wise we may be where aviation was when Lindberg flew mail planes before his trip across the Atlantic.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:47PM
Colonization of Antarctica is prohibited
Yeah. Right. [wikipedia.org]
by international law
...and we all know how binding THAT is. [google.com]
Just call it "science" and do it.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:21PM
Antarctica actually has an atmosphere too.
While Mars technically has an atmosphere of about 600 Pascals it's only 1/160th of Earth's atmospheric pressure. For comparison our atmosphere at 30,000 feet still has around 20,000 Pascals or 33 times that of Mars. Even if Mars had a 100% oxygen atmosphere (which is far from reality) humans would suffocate. So as far as humans are concerned, there is no atmosphere on Mars and there will never be a significant atmosphere on Mars. Its lack of a magnetic field means that even if by some miracle you could get one there, it would just be blown off into space by the solar wind.
As much as I am impressed with Mr. Musk and his vision of the future, he'd better be working on a way to get his million people living and breathing deep under the Martian surface.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:51PM
He should read my novels, which address those concerns. Note that the first one takes place ten million years in the future and the one I'm working on now takes place hundreds of years in the future and they're still digging the hole for the giant magnet.
Musk seems a little impatient; kind of like a 4 year old who doesn't want to wait for the cookies to finish baking. His stance is a bit irrational. I'll never see Martian colonies, and I doubt anyone alive today will. But it will happen.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:21AM
Just like Antarctica, it'll be research stations first. And when you look at the logistics of supplying an Antarctic research base and consider having it quite a few millions of miles further away and needing quite a few more supplies...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 01 2014, @11:11AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:39PM
The Earth isn't fucked up. It's all still there. And what can humanity do to Mars or the Moon that's worse than what those places are like now?
(Score: 3, Funny) by Nerdfest on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:06AM
We could send lawyers and MBAs.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:39PM
I agree that we should stop fucking up this planet, but if it's the only planet we're on what will keep something else from fucking it up? We aren't the only danger to this rock.
However, Musk need not worry. I won't see it, and maybe no one alive will, but we'll have colonies on Mars. Terraforming is going to be a bitch, though, but I'm sure we'll overcome the obstacles.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by glyph on Wednesday October 01 2014, @08:33AM
I think your faith in progress is misplaced. It is said that sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic, but that works both ways. Believing that science can solve whatever we want it to is indistinguishable from believing in wizards.
Our civilisation isn't going to be around forever. That's not really that bad, all civilisations fail. We'll have a dark-age (or dim-age maybe, some low maintenance tech may survive, but don't bet on the internet) and then a new civilisation will come along. Only the new one will have LESS high-energy resources available to throw away on mega-projects. We've seen to that.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:41PM
Look at the last 50,000 years of history and prehistory. Progress ebbed and flowed, rose and sank, but each low was higher than the previous low. As to technology and magic, everything common today from toasters to automobiles would have been magic to anyone from 200 years ago. Even in my own lifetime; look at Star Trek. I was 14 when it first aired, and Uhura's bluetooth earpiece, the "communicators", the doors that opened by themselves, flat screen voice-controlled computers were all fantasy that we never expected to see.
True, we won't last forever. The universe itself won't even. But we'll be around a thousand years from now and the tech will seem as magical to you as a TV set would have to someone a few hundred years ago.
Will we learn everything there is to learn? I'm doubtful. But what we know today is very little compared to what we will learn.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:47AM
Do you know anything about Mars? Or any other planets? Earth is the ONLY planet we have found so far to have anything worth worrying about fucking up! ANY change human presence makes to Mars is bound to be an improvement. And if not.. well.. it's not much of a loss is it? If you are really worried about humans fucking up planets you should advocate that we all go there.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:17PM
Why can't we do both? Stop fucking up our planet AND colonize another one.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:37PM
Does Elon Musk volunteer to be one of the first? Because it's easy to demand sending people there if you are not among them.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:44PM
It's just as easy to demand even if you are "among them". The genuine hard part is pulling it off.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:37PM
A million may be a bit of overkill size of a colony in the modern era.
Given the environment of Mars, and the need to bring or make everything you need, as well as grow food, you probably aren't going to be able to start with 132 people like the Mayflower, but it seems much larger than necessary to form a sustainable colony.
Prior history of earth would suggest that colonies much much smaller can survive and flourish in less harsh extremes with supply's arriving maybe once a year. For Mars the smart thing would be to send supplies first, and lots of them, including shelter and self contained farms.
I suspect that growing beyond 10-30,000 people wouldn't be warranted for a couple hundred years. Too many useless bodies to feed, too little actual productive work to do.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:30AM
Being self sufficient, as many dream of when dreaming of a colony that can outlast an Earth extinction event, would take at least a million people and probably many more. Especially if you consider our liking for war. Imagine the Martian industrial base you'd need to build spaceships and all the supporting industries from scratch. This is why the idea of self sufficient colonies in the near or medium future is just a dream.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 01 2014, @04:49AM
If you are there to stay you don't need space ships. You need food production, mining, shelter, and breathable air production.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:53AM
You have to guarantee that there is not a single irreplaceable dependency on Earth products. Like, say, that little ARM processor that controls the breathable air production or a mining robot. You don't have an option of going back to horses - on Mars you have to have automated machinery in places that are hostile to humans.
Now, what is the chance to have a semiconductor fab on Mars? It requires water and an assortment of rare chemicals... it's dependency hell. Special alloys, medical tools and drugs, oil-based everything - all that requires some little ingredient that is hard to find. Short of finding plenty of accessible ores of metals, and plenty of oxygen to restore them, all you have is sand. Lots of sand.
(Score: 2) by Ryuugami on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:18PM
At least Mars has a much smaller gravity well then Earth. Launching spaceships (or even building a space elevator!) would be significantly easier, and once you have that up and running, you can just mine the asteroids for all the rare stuff.
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday October 01 2014, @04:10PM
At least Mars has a much smaller gravity well then Earth. Launching spaceships (or even building a space elevator!) would be significantly easier
As long as you don't intend to ever land on Mars. Landing is a serious problem because (a) you have to use rockets to brake, and (b) there is atmosphere that interferes with those rockets. This is why first landings of robots on Mars were in a bunch of inflatable balls. Landing a considerable weight with rockets is a complicated task, though that had been done with the recent robots. If you are looking for a spaceport, don't go farther than the Moon - it has no atmosphere, and it is much closer, just three days of travel from Earth. Mars is what, half a year away?
In principle yes, you can live on Mars, and mine asteroids, and do all the usual things that we read in SciFi. However this has to be a self-sustaining colony, as shipments from Earth are expensive and have a huge delivery time. You need to find a way to create a whole biosphere on Mars from, essentially, sand. Perhaps you have some salty ice under the sand. You are standing there, on the surface, in a spacesuit and with a shovel. What do you do? What machines do you need? Do they exist? Can they be made? How heavy they are? Can they be delivered? What powers them? Those are the most essential questions. An inflatable tent is not a concern, you can have that. And die shortly, as Mars does not protect you from radiation. You have to dig to survive. Can you dig? What is down there, 10, 20 or 50 meters under the sand? It'd be sad if you arrive expecting soft stone but finding nothing but sand. You can't dig a pit in sand. A good shipment of reinforced concrete will weigh a few hundred tons, and there is no way to deliver it. You can make some in place... but how? What liner will make your burrow airtight, and how much of it do you need? As of 2014, there are no answers to those questions. They can be obtained by sending better robots to Mars. A manned expedition is not practical until much, much later - unless you just want them to walk around, plant a flag, and go home.
BTW, the first space elevator should be constructed on the Moon. We probably already have materials that can survive the stress. Moon does not have satellites (this is important because the space elevator is not compatible with most satellites.) Moon is close enough so that the construction does not need to span several generations of humans. There is no atmosphere to interfere with the tether. If a space elevator fails there, nobody will be killed on the surface.
(Score: 2) by Ryuugami on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:46PM
Oh, I mostly agree with your comment. I was replying mainly to the statement about the possible lack of some rare elements required for hi-tech item production.
Landing is a serious problem because (a) you have to use rockets to brake, and (b) there is atmosphere that interferes with those rockets.
I have to admit I wasn't thinking about the problems of landing a spaceship back on Mars. It'd probably be better to build a space station for docking and just drop the ores with a rudimentary braking mechanism (rocket, parachutes, w/e) in a somewhat-remote area. You wouldn't need to shed all of the velocity, just enough to survive the impact. I think it should be doable after some research in that direction, but I guess it's still a bit SF-ish.
I'd prefer the space elevator approach, myself. And certainly, building one on the Moon is a logical first step. All I'm saying is, let's complete the M&M before trying it on Earth :)
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday October 01 2014, @04:33PM
Wait, we are in serious goal post creep here.
The gp postulated as earth extinction event, and now you are postulating a shopping spree on earth.
Let's stick to one imaginary scenario. If earth is extinct there will be no running back for random computer chips.
So you repurpose some other computer to deal with the problem.
If earth isn't extinct they can send spare parts.
In no instance do you have to build rocket ships on Mars.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday October 01 2014, @06:24PM
Pretty soon you will run out of computers. That's exactly the problem. If you want to have the Martian colony to be a backup, it has to be independent for a very, very long time. Or you have to stock it with an enormous quantity of spare parts (which then become a single source and can be lost in an accident or something, or simply damaged over time by the environment. How do you store batteries, for example?)
There is yet another thing to mention - psychology of the colonists. Nobody will be willing to live in a dark, underground bunker for generations just to be a backup in case something happens on Earth. You have to provide colonists with an environment that is at least comparable with what we have on Earth. Perhaps a warm ocean is too much to ask, but one will be expecting parks, a small lake, reasonable living accomodations, an assortment of work (as every colonist is inclined to do something unique,) - and a reasonable guarantee of long term survival. Without that you only can send soldiers; and there is a good chance that they will go crazy within months. Yet another issue is that after generations spent on Mars, in 0.38G, those colonists will be physically incapable of walking in the 1G environment of Earth. Mars is *not* a good backup location for earthlings.
If backup is all that you really need, there are easier ways to achieve that. Build large, underground, self-contained shelters in various places of the Earth. Some should be underwater; other could be in geologically stable areas of continents. Reinforce them against earthquakes. Create whatever ecosystem you want within. You can keep people in them all the time, or some of the time, or never - depending on circumstances. You can have far more people in those shelters than you can ever send to Mars, as each shelter will be infinitely cheaper than shipping a bottle of cough medicine to Mars. Perhaps in the worst case some of these shelters will not survive; however any one shelter will be larger than the entire Martian colony, and it will be enough to repopulate Earth without first figuring out how to get there from another planet.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday October 01 2014, @07:21PM
Perhaps you could go back to discrete component circuits. Much easier to build, much less fussy. Not as fast or efficient or small. So you go back to something simpler and build your way forwards from there. (Admittedly even simple transistors are pretty picky compared to vacuum tubes, but tubes burn out too rapidly. ... OTOH, the IBM 7090 was build with vacuum tubes.)
Colonies need to expect to retrogress technologically, even when they can depend on support from the home land. Or, perhaps, some of the current leading-edge approaches could be adapted. A lot of the current development work on graphene isn't high tech. But then most of it also isn't directly applicable.
Still, you will NEED a semiconductor industry, at least sufficient to make photocells, and that implies a LOT of underpinning support functions. I'm not sure that a million is a large enough number. You probably won't get self-sufficiency until you're over two million, with decades of on-site development.
That said, it's still a good idea. Personally, I'd aim at the asteroids rather than Mars, but the idea is the same. And they both require equivalent levels of support. Mars *may* require less development of current technologies. What both approaches need is a lot of work on closed ecosystems. And both should plan to start small and grow. (Mind you, you don't necessarily say that on the PR pieces, which I count this as.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday October 01 2014, @07:43PM
Perhaps. But I have one simple question re: unobtainables. Organic chemistry produces a lot of necessary materials for semiconductor industry - insulators, gaskets, alcohols to clean things, lubricants to keep things running, complex drugs to keep people alive, paper to write on and to keep ourselves clean. Most of these products are manufactured from oil and natural gas and dead trees. Most likely there are no such things on Mars, especially forests. This would require to reinvent the whole technological process. I am not sure how this would be possible; even if you are awash in rare metals and water and sand, you still cannot make synthetic rubber for your own spacesuit. And, obviously, without a spacesuit your existence on Mars will be brutish and short.
We can make these things on Earth only because we have an inheritance of billions of years of life on this planet. We draw oil and gas from that bank account. We obtain industrial gases from our atmosphere, from the Earth's crust, and from chemical reactions with Earth's minerals that we mine. Martians would have to go without. I am not sure how. Perhaps it's not even possible without having a Universal Constructor.
(Score: 1) by fritsd on Wednesday October 01 2014, @09:34PM
You have a good point with the organic chemicals.
Maybe we could dig up water ice, melt it and electrolyse it, and use the H2 combined with CO2 from the atmosphere (use a compressor) in the water-gas shift reaction running backwards (reverse water-gas shift reaction, RWGS. Funny: the Wikipedia article even mentions the potential use for a Mars base!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water-gas_shift_reaction [wikipedia.org]
That gives you CO, carbon monoxide. That can probably be turned into methanol or methane quite easily with some extra H2 (Fischer-Tropsch reaction, 1925), and there you have the precursor you need for *all* your organic chemistry needs.
As a bonus, the byproduct is oxygen to breathe!
The scientific basis for all of these things was laid at the beginning of the *twentieth* century. Maybe that's why, 100 years later, it has become so "unsexy" that would-be Martian colonists don't see that all of that is largely a solved problem.
As you point out, Mars doesn't have millions of years of coal deposits, you'd need energy. So one of the things launched should be a small solar cell factory; you shovel sand in, and after a long while and a lot of electricity, it spits out a coin-sized low-efficiency amorphous Silicon solar cell.
Or something like that.
That would be a real enabling technology, because Silicon solar cells work practically anywhere in the solar system (yes, you'd need a lot more surface if you want to build a base on Ganymede or Titan).
After the Open Source Ecology people are finished with their Global Village Construction Set, it should be expanded to a Global Spacebase Construction Set ;-)
(Score: 1) by tftp on Wednesday October 01 2014, @10:20PM
There are already plans (Wikipedia etc.) to use Martian atmosphere as a source of CO(2), CO, N, O. It's not particularly dense, but it can be worked with.
So one of the things launched should be a small solar cell factory; you shovel sand in, and after a long while and a lot of electricity, it spits out a coin-sized low-efficiency amorphous Silicon solar cell.
It would be a good start to build such a machine and run it on Earth ;-) We have lots of sand, and these machines can be bootstrapped from the existing grid. These cells won't be very efficient, but they will do nicely for the cost of free.
But the most important reason why Mars is not being colonized right now is simply because there is no need to. If you ask the population of Earth, across all countries and continents, if they are willing to work for a year or more for free just so the humankind can launch a colony, the answer will be resounding "no." Most people on this planet do not have cash to spare; and when they do, they spend it on themselves. The current system of governing also does not facilitate space exploration, as democracies (read, people) are not driven to throw money into the sky. They have to have a really serious reason to bother - and such a reason does not exist for the last 40 years.
Furthermore, the world is getting closer and closer to the World War III, as the competition for resources becomes more aggressive. The Cold War is being restarted, as "war is good for business." There is no chance that major spaceflight-capable countries will work together on the Martian colony. Without cooperation it will simply not happen. The USA, with their debt of astronomical proportions, is scrambling to put together a manned spaceship, as there is none left after STS. Russia, being increasingly isolated from the West for political reasons, has a far better, domestic use for funds. China has some healthy space ambitions, but their space program is way behind, and they have zero experience in running space hardware for years. Combined, those countries could come up with a semi-reasonable project. Isolated, none of them will get anywhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 02 2014, @01:25PM
well ofcourse not, even in first world countries like the US 75% of the population cannot survive for more then 3 months without income
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday October 02 2014, @02:42AM
Basically you need the same technology that it takes to build a spaceship, perhaps minus the rocket engines. Anything less means you die as any colony is basically a spaceship minus the engines.
Moving about Mars, at least long distances is likely to need rocket engines as well. Even any kind of aircraft will likely need a rocket assist to take off and get enough speed to fly in that thin atmosphere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @04:31AM
Too many useless bodies to feed, too little actual productive work to do.
Doesn't that sum up humanity as a whole? We are just a bunch of people doing things, none of our accomplishments really matter. What makes what ever those people would do less important that what everyone else does? Personally I find everyone useless, and I don't particularly find value in going to great lengths to prevent extinction.
I'll admit technology is interesting, and maybe obsoleting ourselves would be pretty cool. We could make some von neumann probes the survive as a species way better than humans, or maybe some fancy seed AI that can outpace all our intelligence and technology. Anything interesting people can do that seems like it might have some value won't be requiring people for much longer. People are just useless bodies to feed: soon we won't need ANY of them at all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by umafuckitt on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:42PM
"Instead, he said that going to Mars is as urgent and crucial as lifting billions out of poverty, or eradicating deadly disease."
Did he? And did he also say how we'll survive on a planet with virtually no water, a thin and useless atmosphere, and a surface that's bathed in radiation due to the lack of a magnetic field? Truly, we might as well start colonising the seabed. It'll be easier and more hospitable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:04PM
Agree: Mars' soil is pretty much nitrogen depleted, 1M sacks of fertilizer is still insignificant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:22PM
Or as the rest of the world calls them, "Americans".
(Score: 2) by CRCulver on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:26PM
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:03AM
Andrew Weir covered that nicely in The Martian. It's about a guy who gets left behind on Mars on a NASA expedition because his crew mates think he's dead, and luckily he has degrees in botany and engineering. Best science fiction I've read in years, the guy took great pains to get all the science right. Action, adventure, lots of humor, suspense, great book.
How does he grow potatoes in Martian soil? Mixing it with a little Earth soil and shitting and pissing on it (which the agronomists on the Ag PhD TV show say works). Of course, he's growing them inside (and they die when a catastrophe happens).
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 01 2014, @02:34AM
I saw this article [ibtimes.co.uk] last week via CmdrTaco's new venture, Trove. Researchers in the Netherlands were able to grow crops in simulated Martian soil. It is also documented fact that human waste is a perfectly fine fertilizer for agriculture. The imperial Chinese collected it from outhouses as "night soil" to fertilize their fields when paternal inheritance patterns dropped per capita acreage to less than an acre and masses of peasants were pushed to the brink of starvation. Even today human urine is used--the Bronx Zoo has a restroom by the Bronx River Parkway side of the park that separates the streams and uses the urine to fertilize the landscaped plants and flowers.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:47AM
You've still got to flush the poisons (whose name escapes me right now, damn old age) out of the soil first. Luckily they're water soluble but you need lots of water or at least quite a bit of water and a vacuum still. Also would need quite a bit of shit. At least being your own shit you wouldn't have to worry too much about the bacteria in it.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:51PM
I just did a quick wikipedia search, it's salt perchlorates and wasn't confirmed, and the article said that Martian soil varies from site to site. But terrestrial farmers have been dealing with bad soil for a long time (salt perchlorates can form naturally here as well as Mars).
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday October 02 2014, @02:53AM
Yes, that's what I was thinking off. Not to bad to deal with as they're water soluble.
We need to explore Mars much more, probably with lots of robotic probes, just to find out things like how the Martian soil varies, how much water is available to be mined and I'm sure lots of other stuff. Most people forget just how big Mars is, basically the same land area as the Earth and there is a lot of various terrain on the Earth.
(Score: 1) by Webweasel on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:42PM
There's a note on my toilet:
Wanna pee? Go do it on the compost heap outside.
Every bit of organic matter from the household goes into the compost. The only exception is excrement as it contains virus's
Hair from plugs, contents of the vacuum cleaner, ashtrays, floor sweepings, everything.
It gets mixed with garden waste then left to decompose for a year or so, then its left out in the rain to wash any salts out from reused soil (From plant feed) and allows the cat's to use it for their business.
After about 6 months or so, I have rich dark compost full of all kinds of nutrients. Usually anything planted in it won't need feeding for a long time and more sensitive plants need some inert matter mixed in (Perlite, vermiculite etc) to weaken it. It's so nitrogen rich that its too strong for some breeds.
The soil in my garden is slowly changing from solid clay/sand mix (I live on a drained marshland) to a rich fertile soil that's worth growing in.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:30PM
Domes.
Solves all your objections.
Not that we've built any such thing to scale yet, but we'd need that for the seabed too.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by EvilJim on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:48AM
Sorry, domes are too close to phones with rounded corners, you wont be allowed to do that.
(Score: 1) by glyph on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:31PM
Jesus Infinity Gauntlet.
Solves everything too. Problem is they are both fantasy.
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:53AM
Hmm. well.. you got the part about the seabed being more hospitable correct.
As for the rest... Mars has plenty of water so long as you go to the right places. There is no liquid surface water but there seems to be lots of muddy places. There are also polar ice caps. Thin atmosphere.. yup. Not sure it is entirely useless but certainly not thick enough to lose the space suit. Bathed in radiation? Nope. Higher radiation than on earth. Certainly enough to be a problem during solar flares. Hardly enough to say it's "bathed" in it though.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:37AM
Which is being done, incidentally. But it's never going to have the draw of living on another planet.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday September 30 2014, @10:50PM
Mars would not be my choice for the first permanent colony though. Luna is soooo much closer.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:05PM
Can you say "prison colony"? Look at the facts. Back then Australia was isolated. Today Mars is isolated. Back then they had too many prisoners and nowhere to put them. Today, at least in the States, dits. Just about everything in Australia wants to kill you. Ditto Mars.
Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Leebert on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:11AM
Sounds good to me. I have no problem committing a heinous crime for free passage to Mars.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:56AM
Do you think they'd also waste money on ample supplies for a heinious criminal? Even the Australian convicts, who were mostly people who used the payday loan store and such, were basically left to sink or swim and back then the regular criminals were simply hanged.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Snotnose on Wednesday October 01 2014, @02:24PM
Sigh. It wasn't meant to be interesting, it was meant to be funny :(
Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:36AM
This'll happen right after killer drones lead to no one dying in wars anymore.
I'll say this, though: Musk seems to have his heart in the right place.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:54AM
But you can bet that it was in there somewhere. "I'm in the launch business, and if I can sell you on this, my company will make a LOT of money."
Not that I'm begrudging SpaceX the chance to make that kind of money.
(Score: 2, Informative) by rumata on Wednesday October 01 2014, @02:16AM
Elon is in the launch business _because_ he wants to go to (and die on) Mars.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday October 02 2014, @02:03AM
How does that conflict with what I said? You can both run a space business (and be a very effective CEO of it) and also be in the business because you're a big fan of space.
In fact, if you aren't a big fan of space, what would be the point of being in the space business rather than, say, selling shoes?
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Wednesday October 01 2014, @07:33AM
It might even remain a stupid step for a long time. Mars (nor the Moon) is not really a hospitable place for humans - the atmosphere is wrong, the pressure is wrong, the "g" is wrong, you have almost all the same problems of a space station except you can't fix the "g" easily on the surface of Mars. Whereas in orbit you can pick the "g"s you want.
There's little evidence that you can farm the plants and animals you want on Mars more easily and cheaply than you can in a space station - the plants and animals would still need expensive shelter.
[1] First versions could be using tethers and counterweights.
(Score: 1) by GWRedDragon on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:05PM
The difference is that Mars has raw materials that you probably need, and you DON'T have to ship every last pebble up there on a rocket.
If you can utilize some of what is already there, it is much better than space. If you are just building a bubble and shipping everything up in perpetuity, it is a waste of effort.
[Insert witty message here]
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Wednesday October 01 2014, @03:21PM
An asteroid has raw materials we need too. Distance isn't how you measure the cost. Stuff like delta-v is. Getting stuff back to Earth from an asteroid in the asteroid belt is easier than getting stuff out of Mars gravity and then back to Earth, similar for getting there. Mars gravity though low is still significant enough that you need a fair amount of energy and resources to escape (and landing safely is harder/riskier). So it's even more viable to establish a colony amongst the asteroid belt than on Mars.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_asteroids#Advantages [wikipedia.org]
And if you look at the disadvantages, asteroids aren't really worse than Mars.
Mars has practically zero atmosphere ( the pressure is 0.6% of Earth's). You still need pressurized shelters (for humans, livestock, plants etc), and pressure suits.
Mars has no significant magnetosphere, so no real radiation shielding we can depend on during the day. So you still need radiation shielding.
Solar energy is 550W per square metre on Mars compared to 300W to nearest edge of belt, 170W in center of belt (Earth is 1300W at atmosphere, and 1000W on surface). However if you're getting solar energy at a space station in the asteroid belt, you can arrange things so you get that 170-300W per square metre all the time. Whereas on Mars you don't get that 550W at night time (Mars day is about 24 hours too). So it works out about the same if not worse - you have no control over night time.
Low gravity - Mars is low gravity, and we have no evidence so far that humans can do well long term on Mars gravity. Whereas a space station can have artificial gravity at earth g.
It might turn out there are show-stoppers to establishing bases amongst the asteroids that we don't know of yet, but the same could be said for Mars. And even if we don't go to the asteroids, the space station tech I'm talking about will still be needed.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday October 01 2014, @07:32PM
Think of this as a PR piece. Mars has the public imagination (well, and also Elon Musk's). But you need to develop the same technologies to start asteroid colonies as Martian colonies. They aren't really in conflict.
Also, while I also think the asteroids are a better choice, fast transport between asteroids is currently out of the question except in very rare cases. It's often nearly as cheap to get from one asteroid to Earth as from one asteroid to a particular other asteroid. The difference is that you can use ion-rockets, mass-drivers (bad idea), and solar sails to get from one asteroid to another and back. If you aren't worried about travel time. So each asteroid will essentially be its own country. Quarantine will be trivial. Etc. This puts us back in many ways to the Polynesians, with the difference that we still have fast communication. And do remember that some Polynesian colonies totally died out with no survivors. But many of them did quite well.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Monday October 06 2014, @08:07PM
But you need to develop the same technologies to start asteroid colonies as Martian colonies. They aren't really in conflict.
What I'm saying is we need to develop certain technologies _first_ before doing the Mars thing. But instead they're trying to do the Mars thing first - they are clearly NOT doing the space station with artificial gravity thing I'm talking about first. Some are even talking about manned one-way missions to Mars!
It's like researching the wrong tech first in the "tech tree" on some game. We're wasting time and resources.
Meanwhile we're burning up our fossil fuel capital that took millions of years to accumulate. Once that's gone, it'll be much harder to get all those rockets off the ground to do all the stuff that's needed (so that we can delay the inevitable and tap the accumulated capital/resources that's elsewhere beyond Earth).